The Bombardier Beetle Shoots Back

Christopher Weber claims he has exploded the Bombardier beetle myth, because he
has found factual errors and logical deficiencies in the argument for creation
developed around this clever little creature (1981). Well, they say that
confession is good for the soul, so I had better confess. I am the source of the
original little
pamphlet about the Bombardier beetle which was published way back in the early
sixties. My first information was from an article in the science page of Time
magazine (1961) and then a follow-up of Hermann Schildknecht's first research
article which was published in Angewandte Chemie in 1961. My translation of
this article was cursory, rather sloppy, and the idea of spontaneous explosion
of the beetle's hydrogen peroxide-hydroquinone mix came from the Time article.
So please don't lay so much blame on Dr. Gish. I must accept responsibility for
the
misinformation.

Having said this, however, it does appear to me that Chris Weber has not
proved his case very well and, therefore, our case still stands. In fact, he
ignored or overlooked some basic facts that his readers really ought to know if
he claims
to have demolished our case.

It is true that a mixture of the two reactants dissolved in water does not spontaneously explode, but Dr. Schildknecht noted that the mixture is quite unstable
in vitro and begins to react immediately. He also reported some experimentation
with the mixture stored in the reservoir. It seems that the mixture of
hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide remains stored indefinitely in the reservoir
without
reacting, preserved in a clear water-white condition. He says:

It is thus astonishing that the content of the pygidial gland remains completely colorless in the interior of the bag. This may be investigated if one keeps
an isolated pair of pygidial glands together with a moist cotton pad in a small
weighing bottle. The contents of the bag remain water-clear for a long time.
When after up to two days the bag begins itself by subsequent decomposition
to become colored black, there is still to be noted no decomposition of its
contents, which, after four days, always still is in reaction-ready condition,
as the violent effervescence with formation of quinone and oxygen caused by
touching the bag, by this time strongly decomposed, demonstrates... .

In comparison it may be shown by experiment that the phygidial bladder

- page 13 -

contents are stable only in the interior of the bladder and spontaneously
decompose in a brief time, if one withdraws it from the bladder, perhaps by
puncturing the inactivated bladder with a fine capillary.

According to these investigations, there is a principle active in the biological
system that a solution of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide is stabilized. This
principle is either chemical or physical chemical in nature, but it appears to
be connected with the morphology of the collection bladder of the pygidial gland
system. Stabilization by a homogeneous chemical stabilizer distributed in the
solution appears improbable.

Now let us analyze this defense system from the evolutionary viewpoint. Mr.
Weber makes it sound all too easy. Within the framework of his preliminary
speculations, we have to imagine a beetle which merely was a stinker, dripping
hydroquinones from his anus to be as unappetizing as possible, which would
certainly have an adaptive value. But then, somehow, some hydrogen peroxide
began to get mixed with the hydroquinone. This was supposedly advantageous, so
that gradually natural selection led to increased peroxide content. At first the
two compounds reacted until the peroxide was used up. Now this might be
advantageous, since the resulting quinone would be an irritant to enemy
predators. So now the beetle both stank and burnt the mouths of predators. But
then, by chance, a still unknown mechanism developed-either all at once or
slowly which prevented the reaction. This would supposedly provide some unknown
advantage greater than the previously described advantage of having the reaction
take place. Then, gradually, the gland or glands producing the two reactants
evolved the power to produce greater and greater concentrations of a stable
mixture of hydroquinones and peroxide, eventually reaching 10 percent and 23-25
percent, respectively. This process supposedly had some progressively
advantageous value to the beetle.

Schildknecht points out that it is reasonable to imagine that in the biochemical
production of each two moles of hydroquinone from quinone, a natural by product
would be one mole of oxygen (molecular), and that this could be converted to one
mole of hydrogen peroxide. This would yield a weight ratio for hydroquinone to
peroxide of 6.5 to 1. But in the stored liquid produced by the beetle's pygidial
glands, the ratio for hydroquinone to hydrogen peroxide is 1 to 2.4, an almost
fifteen-fold excess of peroxide. This is apparently needed to get both oxidation
explosively of the hydroquinone and a large amount of oxygen gas to provide
extra propulsion force for the defensive charge. It seems that evolution is
always thinking ahead?

Returning now to our developmental train of thought, in the meantime, or at some
subsequent time, the vestibule developed with attached glands producing the two
enzymes necessary to produce an explosion when mixed with the
hydroquinone-peroxide solution. But presumably in the early evolutionary stages
the amounts of the enzymes would be small and the concentrations of the
reactants

- page 14 -

also small, so no explosions would occur. Perhaps the beetle just walked around
with its stinking behind getting gradually hotter and hotter. Maybe it got too
hot back there, so it became advantageous for the beetle to evolve the muscle
and valve to shut off the reservoir from the vestibule containing the enzymes.
Then the beetle would find it advantageous to squirt out short spurts of the
mixture which would explode in the vestibule, once the concentrations all got
properly balanced. Of course, until controlled explosions became possible to the
beetle, there would be no need for the aimable orifices or guns that are now
attached to the vestibules of the beetle. So we might speculate that the earlier
forms of beetles of the genus Brachinus used shotguns which were not very
efficient. Greater efficiency was gained by evolving the shotgun barrels into
rifle barrels. Then the beetle could shoot his enemies by aiming his rear end at
them and pulling a trigger mechanism which he had just happened to evolve in the
nick of time. It would be pretty bad when the robber walked in if the hero found
his gun did not have a trigger or if he had not learned how to aim it. Later it
became advantageous for the twin rifles to be installed in moveable turrets so
that they could cover an arc of 270 degrees. And this all by spontaneous
materialistic process!

It does seem to me that to believe such a scenario is credible requires strong
faith in the capabilities of atoms and science, but those who believe in
evolution have such a faith. Those who believe in creation likewise have strong
faith. The difference is that they place their faith in a Being of infinite
intelligence and power whose intelligent, purposeful designs are evident
everywhere in nature.

Note

Translations from the German are due to the author, with trepidation.

Title:

The Bombardier Beetle Shoots Back

Author(s):

Robert E. Kofahl

Volume:

2

About the Author(s):

Dr. Kofahl has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology,
is science coordinator for the Creation-Science Research Center, and has
authored books supporting creationism, including The Creation Explanation and
The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter.